BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 300 of 2015

Date of Institution: 11-05-2015

Date of Decision: 17-03-2016

Tajinder Singh son of Baldev Singh, resident of L-12/1643, Gali No.7, Guru Nanak Pura, Sultanwind Road, Amritssar-143001.

Complainant

Versus

1. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India,  Dhab Wasti Ram, Amritsar-143001.
2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Sector-17, Chandigarh. 

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.G.B.S.Bhullar, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.B.S.Sachdeva, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Tajinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the paternal grand mother of the complainant namely Smt.Parkash Kaur  deposited Rs.1,50,000/- with Opposite Party-Bank as Fixed Deposit for 36 months in joint names with complainant with the operation mode as ‘Former or Survivor’. Said FDR matured on 18.5.2009 with maturity value of Rs.1,84,716/- and it transpired to her illiterate grand mother that somehow through clerical error the name of the complainant was mentioned as ‘Rajinder Singh’ instead of the correct one i.e. ‘Tajinder Singh’ with only one alphabet T inadvertently replaced by R. the FDR was payable former or survivor. The said FDR was renewed on 235.2009 for Rs.1,84,542/- for 12 months i.e. upto 23.5.2010. Said FDR was further renewed on 24.5.2010 for 12 months upto 24.5.2011. Unfortunately, the grand mother of the complainant expired on 22.10.2011. It was during the search for some property documents that the FDR in question was located. Said FDR was presented to Opposite Party No.1  who arbitrarily and unlawfully refused the payment on the ground that the name of survivor has been spelt as Rajinder Singh instead of Tajinder Singh. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties   to pay the amount of FDR of Rs.2,13,320/- as on 24.5.2011 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum with monthly rests with effect from 25.5.2011 till the date of payment of amount.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as per the record of the bank, the disputed FDR is standing in the name of Smt.Parkash Kaur jointly with Shri Rajinder Singh and not on the name of Tajinder Singh complainant, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Even otherwise, the present complaint does not lie under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The proceeds of the FDR can only in favour of the person who is holder of the FDR as per records of the bank or subject to submission of Succession Certificate issued by the competent court of law. The complainant has already been advised by the bank to submit Succession Certificate issued in his favour by the competent court of law so as to release the proceeds of the FDR, but instead of complying with the said requirement, the complainant has wrongly filed the present complaint concealing true facts from this Forum, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.S.C.Sarangal, Manager Ex.OP1,2/A alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/1 to Ex.OP1,2/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that on 18.5.2013 Smt.Parkash Kaur, grand mother of the complainant Tajinder Singh    got deposited Rs.1,50,000/- with Opposite Party- i.e. State Bank of India, Dhab Basti Ram, Amritsar and got the Fixed Deposit Receipt for 36 months Ex.C1 in joint names with Rajinder Singh with the operation mode as ‘Former or Survivor’. Complainant submitted that grand mother of the complainant namely Smt.Parkash  Kaur was illiterate. She got this FDR in joint names of Smt.Parkash Kaur and the complainant Tajinder Singh who is grand son of Smt.Parkash Kaur, but due to clerical error, the Opposite Party-bank issued the FDR Ex.C1 in which the names of owners of FDR were mentioned as Parkash Kaur and Rajinder Singh instead of correct name i.e. Tajinder Singh. Said FDR matured on 23.5.2009 and the same was renewed  on 23.5.2009 for 12 months with maturity date 23.5.2010. Said FDR was further renewed on 24.5.2010 for 12 months with maturity date 24.5.2011. Thereafter, Smt.Parkash Kaur expired on 22.10.2011 as per death certificate Ex.C2. Complainant submitted that he searched property documents and this FDR Ex.C1 was located and was presented to Opposite Party No.1-Bank for payment,  who arbitrarily refused the payment to complainant  on the ground that the name of survivor has been written  as Rajinder Singh instead of Tajinder Singh on the FDR Ex.C1. The complainant filed affidavit Ex.C5 and copy of Aadhar Card Ex.C3 of Tajinder Singh to the affect that the name on the FDR has been wrongly/ inadvertently written by Opposite Party No.1-Bank as Rajinder Singh whereas the FDR has been got prepared by Smt.Parkash Kaur jointly in the name with Tajinder Singh complainant and not Rajinder Singh. Complainant also wrote letter to Opposite Parties  Ex.C6 undated and the Opposite Parties  sent reply dated 14.10.2014 Ex.C7 asking the complainant to bring the certificate/ decree from the court that he is the same person known by two names Mr.Rajinder Singh and Mr.Tajinder Singh. Again the complainant wrote letter dated 9.12.2014 Ex.C8, to Opposite Parties  and the Opposite Parties  gave similar reply on 23.12.2014 Ex.C9 again asking the complainant that  he should produce the certificate from the Hon’ble Court that the complainant is same person known by two names Rajinder Singh and Tajinder Singh. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that Opposite Parties  did not pay the maturity amount of the FDR to the complainant and all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties is that as per the record of the bank, the disputed FDR is standing in the name of Smt.Parkash Kaur jointly with Shri Rajinder Singh and not on the name of Tajinder Singh complainant. So, it is clear that the FDR in question was not on the joint names of Smt.Parkash Kaur and the complainant. This FDR was obtained by Smt.Parkash Kaur jointly with Rajinder Singh and not the complainant Tajinder Singh. Until and unless it is declared by the court that Tajinder Singh and Rajinder Singh are one and the same person, the complainant does not come consumer qua the Opposite Parties, as such the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Opposite Parties  have rightly refused to pay the proceeds of the FDR to the complainant. The complainant has already been intimated by Opposite Parties-Bank vide letters Ex.C7 and Ex.C9 produced by the complainant himself, to obtain certificate or declaration or order from then competent court of law that Tajinder Singh complainant is also called Rajinder Singh or that Tajinder Singh and Rajinder Singh are one and the same person, payment can not be released in favour of the complainant because the FDR is in the name of Smt.Parkash Kaur and Rajinder Singh. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  submitted that  the complainant should get declaration from the competent court  i.e. Civil Court in this regard or should get Succession Certificate, but unless he has been declared by competent Civil Court under Specific Relief Act, that the complainant is also known as Rajinder Singh, he does not become consumer qua the Opposite Parties-Bank. As such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite Parties have rightly refused to make the payment of FDR, to the complainant, without decree/ certificate from the competent court. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties  qua the complainant.        
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that Smt.Parkash Kaur grand mother of complainant Tajinder Singh got deposited Rs.1,50,000/- with Opposite Party No.1-Bank i.e. State Bank of India, Dhab Basti Ram, Amritsar and got the FDR for 36 months Ex.C1 in the joint name with Rajinder Singh with the operation mode as former and survivor. Ex.C1 FDR is clearly in the joint name of Smt.Parkash Kaur and Sh.Rajinder Singh. Complainant alleges that Smt.Parkash Kaur got this FDR jointly in the name of Smt.Parkash Kaur and complainant Tajinder Singh, but inadvertently, Opposite Party No.1 wrote the name Rajinder Singh instead of Tajinder Singh on this FDR. Said FDR matured on 23.5.2009. Smt.Parkash Kaur got the same renewed on 23.5.2009 for 12 months with maturity date 23.5.2010. Again Smt.Parkash Kaur got it renewed on 24.5.2010 for 12 months with maturity date 24.5.2011. So it stands fully proved on record that this FDR was in the name of Smt.Parkash Kaur  and Sh.Rajinder Singh and Smt.Parkash Kaur  got this FDR renewed twice. As such, she was fully aware that this FDR was in the name of Smt.Parkash Kaur  and Sh.Rajinder Singh and not in the name of complainant Tajinder Singh. Thereafter, Smt.Parkash Kaur  expired on 22.10.2011 as per death certificate Ex.C2. Complainant submitted that he searched the property documents and this FDR Ex.C1 was located and presented to Opposite Party No.1-Bank for payment, who refused the payment to the complainant on the ground that name of survivor has been written as Rajinder Singh instead of Tajinder Singh on this FDR Ex.C1. The complainant could not produce any evidence that as to when he searched for property documents and during that search, he located/ found this FDR Ex.C1. The complainant has also not mentioned the date, time and year  when this FDR was located/ found by the complainant and was presented to Opposite Party No.1-Bank for payment. In order to find out this fact, this Forum called Branch Manger  of the Opposite Party No.1-Bank. Sh.Subhash Chander Sarangal, Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Dhab Basti Ram Branch, Amritsar appeared and got recorded his statement on 15.10.2015 that the FDR in dispute was issued from the saving bank account  of the account holder Smt.Parkash Kaur  and no FDR account opening form was filled in by the account holder Smt.Parkash Kaur  at the time of making FDR in question as per their record. Only saving bank opening form signatures are relevant for the said FDR and that voucher is not traceable being very old pertaining to the year 2006. Opposite Party No.1-Bank authorities have categorically stated that this FDR was prepared jointly in the name of Smt.Parkash Kaur and Sh.Rajinder Singh. Smt.Parkash Kaur  was fully aware about these facts and she got this FDR renewed twice from Opposite Party No.1-Bank in the same names i.e. jointly with Rajinder Singh. She never raised any objection nor filed any application for correction of name in the FDR i.e. Tajinder Singh instead of Rajinder Singh. Opposite Parties  have wrote letters to the complainant Ex.C7 dated 14.10.2014 and Ex.C10 dated 23.12.2012 asking the complainant to produce the certificate from the Hon’ble Court that the complainant is same person known by two names i.e. Rajinder Singh and Tajinder Singh. So, until and unless the complainant got declaration from the Civil Court that the complainant Tajinder Singh is also called as Rajinder Singh, the complainant does not become the consumer qua the Opposite Parties. Moreover, the complainant also could not produce any evidence before this Forum that complainant Tajinder Singh  is also known as Rajinder Singh. This Forum can not declare that Tajinder Singh complainant is also known as Rajinder Singh. It comes within the purview of the Civil Court under suit for declaration under the Specific Relief Act, to pass the decree by declaring that Tajinder Singh is also known as Rajinder Singh. Resultantly, the complainant should approach the civil court for such declaration and present complaint in this Consumer Forum is not maintainable.
9. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this complaint and               the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 17-03-2016.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member